Headlines about “the end of the republic” litter political commentary across the political landscape. They usually mark the beginning of a discussion of the merits of Donald Trump as president of the United States, but his ascendency is not the leading sign of a collapse of American society. For that, see a recent poll indicating a tectonic shift occurring in the political preferences of U.S. adults. When you consider current trends in cultural norms and widely held beliefs, you will see that we are headed toward the end of the American experiment.

The American Culture and Faith Institute recently conducted a survey of adults 18 and older. It shows not only how deeply divided Americans are on some issues but also how their view of the nation stands in many cases in stark contrast to our nation’s founding principles. Most Americans (58 percent) see themselves as politically moderate, while a quarter identify as conservative, and 17 percent as liberal. Those who were both socially and fiscally conservative, the group tracked by the ACFI in greatest detail, were 6 percent of the population.

But those differences don’t reveal the greatest divide and danger to America’s future. “The most alarming result, according to [George] Barna, was that four out of every ten adults say they prefer socialism to capitalism,” the ACFI noted in its commentary on the poll. “That is a large minority,” Barna said, “and it includes a majority of the liberals — who will be pushing for a completely different economic model to dominate our nation. That is the stuff of civil wars. It ought to set off alarm bells among more traditionally-oriented leaders across the nation.’” That 40 percent of Americans now prefer socialism to capitalism could spell major change to the policies advanced by legislators and political leaders and to the interpretations of judges ruling on the application of new and pre-existing laws.

pondering_it_all
old hand
Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6832
Loc: North San Diego County

Boy, what a load of crap! Even the President of the United States loves Russia and Putin, former head of the KGB of the USSR. How do you square THAT with his claims?

I particularly liked:

Quote:

Many Americans have forgotten the lessons of the Cold War and the disasters witnessed in the crumbling economies and failed polities of Communist and socialist countries in the 1990s. Communism was on its last leg, it appeared, and its little brother socialism was not far behind.

I like how he uses the image of Communism from 20 years ago to draw conclusions today. I got some news for him: The largest Communist country in the world, China, is still there. The Soviet Union might have collapsed, but all sorts of socialist countries are doing fine.

And the other important distinction is that Americans do NOT want dismal totalitarian East German-style Socialism. (With a capital S.) They want Social Security, they want Medicare, they want Medicaid for the poor, they want unemployment insurance. In short, they want Scandanavian-style socialism. And now "American socialists" want single-payer health care (like almost every other developed country) simply because it is more efficient that what we have now.

We have no great love of government telling us what to do. We just want to look at economic reality and stop doing stupid stuff because of a bunch of McCarthy BS from 65 years ago.

The problem with this author's view, and too many people on the Right's view, is the obsession with PURITY, as if somehow capitalism is able to exist as a 100 percent pure elixir, utterly free of any constraint or social contract.

Supporters of capitalism need to stop obsessing over some idealized "pure" version of capitalism.

Purity kills, purity leads to purity oaths, purity leads to fundamentalist extremism, purity leads to genetic birth defects, purity becomes entropy, purity is volatile, purity is stultification, purity is suffocation, purity is obsessive compulsive.You add new genes to a gene pool the gene pool gets strongerIf you make that line too pure, you start seeing birth defects.Purity is not found in the real world, only in the spiritual realm and for man to demand purity in money is for man to make a religion of it.

Capitalism needs to alloy itself with those ideals which seek to serve all mankind because if capitalism will not submit itself to serving all mankind then capitalism is deserting mankind in order to serve one man or a handful of men.Purity is fundamentalist extremism. It is the blueprint for fear driven megalomania.Purity is the precursor to fascism.Capitalism is like FIRE.Fire can forge your steel, heat your home, cook your food, and be an all around helpful tool that serves mankind. But left uncontrolled, FIRE can burn down entire villages, destroy businesses, find use as a weapon of war.This is why mankind has fire REGULATIONS.All powerful forces of nature require some sort of regulation.Capitalism serves best only when used as a tool to serve all mankind.Once weaponized, it is not a tool any longer, and it only serves despots and tyrants.

_________________________
The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth. - H. L. Mencken

The problem with this author's view, and too many people on the Right's view, is the obsession with PURITY, as if somehow capitalism is able to exist as a 100 percent pure elixir, utterly free of any constraint or social contract.

As I pointed out on another thread, this (Milton Freeman's Free Market Theory) was tried in the 70s after the 1972 Pinochet coup in Chile. The results: high inflation, high unemployment.

pondering_it_all
old hand
Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6832
Loc: North San Diego County

You mean PURE free market capitalism, with no government regulation to keep the con-men at bay. Without that you have nothing but markets you can't trust. Insurance policies that fold or expell you if you ever try to collect. Stocks that are shams.

Corporations ONLY mandate is to make money and if they could make more money by cheating you they would. On the other hand, communism has zero incentive to make a profit, ever. This is why we need the free market bound by reasonable regulations.

You mean PURE free market capitalism, with no government regulation to keep the con-men at bay. Without that you have nothing but markets you can't trust. Insurance policies that fold or expell you if you ever try to collect. Stocks that are shams.

Corporations ONLY mandate is to make money and if they could make more money by cheating you they would. On the other hand, communism has zero incentive to make a profit, ever. This is why we need the free market bound by reasonable regulations.

I'm going to read this in depth, and provide a critique... but I admit to starting with a great dose of skepticism... first, it's in the National Review, which rarely publishes anything that isn't a fascist diatribe or corporatist puffery, second, it is authored by David Nammo, CEO of the Christian Legal Society... let's see what the third strike might be.

_________________________A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

My skepticism deepens when I note that the survey upon which it is based is conducted by the American Culture and Faith Institute, which proclaims itself "a non-partisan, not-for-profit research organization that regularly conducts national surveys to gauge the sentiment and activity of politically conservative, spiritual[sic] active Christians in America." AFCI "about" page. Emphasis added. It is, in fact, a right-wing indoctrination activity. Therefore, Mr. Nammo should be alarmed that 40% of his base demographic disagrees with his views.

The problem, of course, is that he is starting from a false premise, and proceeds through a string of preconceived notions to a foregone conclusion. There is neither substance nor logic to his process (and this guy's a lawyer?). But, I genuinely applaud golem for bringing this to us. I think it is imperative to understand the belief systems and thought processes of those that oppose progress in any form.

Mr. Nammo immediately derides, for example, "liberals" having "traditional values." The only "traditional values" acceptable to his mindset are the "moral values" of being anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-free markets, and pro-capitalism, and Christian. (These are all taken directly from his article, I'm not putting words in his mouth.) - None of which, I note, appear anywhere in the Constitution or other founding documents. Apparently, tolerance, freedom of worship, union, general welfare, community, acceptance, cooperation - which do - are not "values".

Mr. Nammo also, as has been pointed out, opines that capitalism and socialism (in any form) are mutually exclusive, which would be news to most Americans, as well as most of the world. In his narrow-minded, bigoted world, only the pure need exist. Thankfully most of us occupy the real world where others can disagree and not be "immoral." What a prig.

_________________________A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich